Search

This paper reflects on the problem of gender balance in economic decision-making, considers its legislative roots, and offers potential guidance for its solution. The paper takes into account the origin of positive action and effective equality in the scope of EU legislation and CJEU case law and tackles the most troublesome issues regarding the new initiative of making equality in boards effective. It analyses gender equality in three approaches of positive action. Firstly, the fragile approach at the EU level, despite the rich historical impact it has had. Secondly, positive action on CJEU terrain where standards of equality have been set by useful case law. Finally, the form of legislative positive action which aimed to break the glass ceiling in corporate boards - the 'Women on Boards Directive'. With such an approach, the paper offers the authors' view on the stability of positive action and an interpretation of the above-mentioned directive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 6 October 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued the final ruling in Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner (Case C-362/14). In its ruling the Court invalidated the Safe Harbour arrangement, which governs data transfers between the EU and the US. While the decision does not automatically put an end to data transfers from Europe to the United States, it allows each country's national regulators to suspend transfers if the company in the United States does not adequately protect user data. The paper analyses the most important aspects of the judgment: the Court's definition of the competences of national data protection authorities, the Court's interpretation of the criteria for 'adequacy' under Article 25(6) of Directive 9 5/46/ EC and the reasoning of the Court for the invalidation of the Safe Harbour Agreement. Further, and in line with the findings of the Court, the paper analyses the relationship between state surveillance and data protection and examines the consequences of the Court's ruling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the recent adoption of the Paris climate agreement, countries taking climate change action are still faced with a potential risk of carbon leakage due to the absence of a uniform carbon price at the global level. This paper analyses the European Union's current and proposed carbon leakage legislation in order to identify its strengths and weaknesses. It emphasises that the environmental and economic integrity of the European Union's measures is of crucial importance due to the fact that the European Union's leadership in global climate legislation is highly dependent on it and also since the European Union's legislation has already served and is likely to continue serving as a model for similar cap and trade systems worldwide. The paper concludes that the current regulation of carbon leakage in the European Union leads to the overprotection of sectors which are considered to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage and that further revisions of the system are necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper focuses on the principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust in the area of justice and home affairs, with which the current Member States are supposed to comply and which are so vigorously applied in the Western Balkans. The growing importance of these principles both for the Member States and the candidate and potential candidate countries will be discussed, since the pre-accession framework is a very powerful tool to export these values and principles to the Western Balkans. In addition, the paper will argue that on the one hand the EU is aware that the current Member States do not comply with these values and principles and the tools available to force the Member States to comply are very weak. On the other hand, the Western Balkan countries are not allowed one step further towards membership if they do not comply with these values and principles. This illustrates that the EU has double standards in the application of its values and principles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reviews the use of enhanced cooperation in the creation of a European Union patent system. It assesses whether the legal requirements for the application of enhanced cooperation are fulfilled, and it does so in the light of the arguments raised by Italy and Spain in their actions for annulment brought before the European Court of Justice. The paper goes on to analyse whether the proposed patent system complies with the invoked legal basis, which requires the introduction of a new intellectual property right. If the answer is negative, possible ways to correct this mistake will be assessed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper critically analyses EU law on patient mobility, which has developed in the last decade. It covers the European Court of Justice case law applying internal market rules to social security coverage of foreign health treatment, its relationship with the EU rules on the co-ordination of social security systems, and the recent attempts at codifying the case law. The most recent EFTA Court judgment in the Rindal case, and its potential effects on EU law if the Court of Justice adopts the same reasoning in the pending Elchinov case, are investigated. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the implications of EU law on patient mobility on national social security systems, namely their autonomy to define the scope of their coverage of health care treatment, and the consequences, within the framework of EU law, of applying certain legal techniques to define their social packages. Special emphasis is put on the new EU Member States and Croatia. It is argued that these states are in a particularly delicate position in relation to EU law in terms of maintaining the financial stability and the social (in terms of solidarity) character of their social security systems. The paper proposes certain solutions to accomplish a twofold objective: improving legal certainty at the European level (thus facilitating the free movement of patients), while, at the same time, respecting the Member States' freedom to organise their social systems, in order to protect the solidarity on which those systems are based. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and the Charter of Fundamental Rights was accompanied by scepticism on the part of some Member States regarding the widening of the Union's competences on the basis of the Charter. Although certain safeguards were provided within the Treaties and the Charter, the United Kingdom and Poland signed the Protocol on the application of the Charter that was often referred to as an opt-out. This paper will try to define its legal character, show the reasons that motivated the State to sign it (and discuss the justification) and give an answer to what the consequences of the Protocol will be for the protection of fundamental rights -- all from the Polish perspective. Since it will be shown that the Protocol will not play a significant role in practice, the paper will also focus on other issues that arose within the 'Protocol context', particularly the question of the effectiveness of EU law within the diversity that exists among Member States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: This paper questions the necessity and legitimacy of transitional arrangements in the field of free movement of workers imposed on the ten Central and Eastern European states which joined the EU in 2004 and 2007. It addresses the issue of free movement of labour in the enlarged Union in the context of the policy reasoning behind such transitional arrangements. Present transitional periods are contrasted with other solutions (such as allowing immigration quotas), which would have been politically fairer and psychologically wiser in confronting the arguments on the divide between 'first class' and 'second class' EU membership. The paper suggests that the results of the most recent studies, showing that the fears of the old Member States were mostly unfounded and that economic and social benefits result from the free movement of workers in the EU, should be taken into consideration for the next enlargement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rise of the capital market creates new, less noticeable forms of holdings of shares. These holdings could be acquired with the aim of influencing a company's decision-making process without the intention to hold shares for the long term. One of the forms is new vote buying which can appear either as empty voting or as hidden ownership. Empty voting refers to voting by a shareholder without the corresponding financial interest in the company involved. The reverse situation is hidden ownership whereby a party is not the shareholder but is entitled to exercise influence and eventually vote as if he/she were a shareholder. If a shareholder has an ownership interest in the company in which he/she votes, his/her voting would be aligned with the interests of the company. If a shareholder votes for a decision contrary to the company's interest, it would affect his/her own economic interests because the shares could have been sold even before the shareholder's meeting occurred. There are many techniques that lead to empty voting. Those most commonly used are: borrowing shares, using equity swaps or buying shares on a date close to the record date and then selling them again right after the record date has elapsed. As a result, a person casting their vote at the general meeting might not be the 'actual' shareholder. The admissibility of these votes and their effects have been discussed in well-known judicial cases. Having noticed a rise of abusive situations created by using empty voting techniques at the EU level, the revised Transparency Directive set out to deal with these issues. It entered into force on 26 November 2013 with the deadline for implementation set at 26 November 2015. However, since the Transparency Directive is a minimum harmoni- sation Directive, Member States have substantial liberty in its implementation which might lead to a divergent level of investor protection. Further, since the development of capital markets leads to the appearance of new forms of derivatives and other financial instruments which could create an 'empty voting' effect, EU Member States would be tempted to set rules that would, as far as possible, embrace all forms of empty voting in a so-called 'catch all' provision. This paper aims to examine how national legislators of the EU Member States have dealt with the issue of empty voting in light of the solutions provided in the Shareholders Rights Directive o f2007 and in the revised EU Transparency Directive of 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In European Union law, the existence of an effective remedy to challenge EU actions has been at the core of a heated ongoing debate, since individual applicants and NGOs often have a hard time obtaining locus standi in annulment proceedings, due to the restrictive interpretation given by the European Court of Justice to the standing requirements provided by (the former) Article 230(4) of the EC Treaty. The aim of this paper is to show how access to justice before the EU courts for environmental NGOs has been significantly curtailed up to the present, and to discuss the changes to the standing test brought by the Lisbon Treaty by analysing its content and the (to date) limited interpretation given by the European Courts to the term 'regulatory act' introduced by the Treaty. On the basis of this examination, it will be shown how the recent amendments have not changed the position of NGOs who wish to challenge EU environmental measures and how, therefore, a significant gap in judicial protection and a potential violation of Articles 9(2) and (3) of the Aarhus Convention still remain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper deals with obtaining long-term resident status in the European Union under Directive 2003/109/EC and problems arising from certain provisions. While enhancing the rights of legally resident third-country nationals, the Directive is in some aspects incompatible with the case law of the Court of Justice regarding citizens as well as international agreements regarding the free movement of persons. At the same time, the practical applicability of certain provisions is doubtful due to the wide margin of discretion given to Member States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the status of the Lisbon Treaty is still pending, the possible impact that it can have on the EU's immigration legislation is worth analysing and discussing. The importance of immigration, asylum and border control is evident in the fact that the topic is presented as early as in Article 3 of Title I of the Common Provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. It states that the Union 'shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice'. The common area is supposed to exist without internal frontiers where the free movement of persons is ensured. In order to provide for these rights, measures should be taken in the field of border control, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime, as immigration raises problems in all these fields. The internal market is mentioned only after the issues of migration. The aim of this paper is to discuss whether or not these changes and the Lisbon Treaty can lead to the better management of immigration at the EU level and to see where Europe is heading in this regard. Competences, legislation making, and objectives are discussed in order to find answers to questions about the development of common EU immigration legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: This article reviews the constitutional implications of EU membership from a European Commission perspective. It first recalls the ratification procedures in both the old and the new Member States. The author identifies five different groups in this regard. A few Member States apply constitutional provisions on the ratification of international treaties. Others have recourse to a clause which refers to limitations of national sovereignty. The vast majority ratify the founding treaties or the Accession Treaty on the basis of a transfer/delegation of powers clause, or use a clause allowing the common exercise of powers. Finally, some Member States apply special constitutional procedures to bring about EU membership. Despite these theoretical differences, their impact on the actual procedure is less significant. Basically, European treaties are either ratified as other international treaties, or the required majorities in Parliament for ratification rises compared to the parliamentary majorities needed for ordinary international treaties. Sometimes, the need to hold an additional referendum arises, or special constitutional procedures need to be fulfilled. Second, the article compares the domestic rank of European law. It shows that virtually all 27 Member States accept the supremacy of Community law over national statutes. This can be deduced from the text of the integration clauses or their function. The situation is different when it comes to the relationship between Community law and national constitutional law. Here, supremacy of Community law is either rejected, accepted or put under a reserve as regards basic constitutional principles. Third, the paper lists specific constitutional clauses relating to EU matters. It shows that a number of Member States changed their constitutions to allow for voting rights for EU citizens in local elections. Furthermore, constitutional prohibitions to extradite nationals were lifted to be able to comply with the European Arrest Warrant. Moreover, bans on foreigners acquiring real property were abolished, as they were not compatible with the free movement of capital. Community rules on economic and monetary union triggered several amendments related to the independence and function of national banks. Finally, a few candidate countries modified their constitutions to align themselves with a rising corpus of 'constitutional acquis' relating to the independence of the judiciary. The article concludes that the European Commission does not prescribe a specific method on how a candidate should address these issues. Rather, during the negotiations, it points to certain shortcomings as they arise in the negotiation chapters. There is an obligation of result to provide for the supremacy of Community law by accession. The choice on how and when to opt for a constitutional model which is best reconcilable with the candidate's own national tradition certainly remains in the hands of the democratically elected representatives of the candidate country itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: The constitutions of the old and new Member States offer a wide range of models in terms of their adjustment for EU membership, with a number of them containing minimal or even no references to the EU. This paper highlights the importance of adequate amendments in light of selected recent judgments by the highest courts in Poland, Estonia and Latvia, where judges have found themselves in the rather vexed situation of having to find pragmatic solutions to ensure the constitutionality of legislation without jeopardising the supremacy of EC law. In this process, certain constitutional provisions that conflict with EC/EU law appear to have been put on hold, prompting the question of whether a move towards greater 'constitutional amorphousness' has tacitly been accepted by virtue of EU accession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]